Vault Dweller: Age of Decadence needs to sell 45,000 copies to be successful

[Vault Dweller]

The game was released in November 2013. I don't think sales increased much over the years.

And games tend to sell the most on release, in the first two-three months.

Or they could play the demo...

But yes, they'd be pretty far into the sales process to get that point.
well, it was early access and it's not like you had a Kickstarter or anything.

What's been the deciding factor in the sales increase over the years? Word of mouth? Coverage from various interviews? Steam sales?

We only did one sale (2015 summer sale), which didn't make a huge difference. Sales went way up for a week but a week is nothing. If I have to guess, our sales didn't evaporate after release because we kept updating the game on a monthly basis which does inspire confidence.

 

[MRY]

And games tend to sell the most on release, in the first two-three months.

This is definitely true for AAA releases, but I'm not sure it is for indie releases. In Primordia's first quarter, it sold about 12k copies. In its second quarter, it sold around 4k copies. In its third quarter (which include Steam's and GOG's summer sales), it sold around 25k copies. In its fourth quarter, it sold around 15k copies. (I'm not including bundles here.) (Note, there are some problems with the data because of when it gets reported by the sales portal to WEG and by WEG to me.) Sales always spiked during seasonal sales (both on GOG and Steam). Year over year, it looks like around 46k for year 1, 20k for year 2, and 15k so far in year 3. Put otherwise, Primordia's annual sales are still about equal to the first two quarters of sales. (We also sold around 45k copies in bundles the first year, but for various reasons I don't think that's relevant or useful.)

AoD's at a higher pricepoint, and obviously it's in a different genre of game, but to me it's much more impressive, and the kind of thing that is much more likely to spark conversations (players are much more likely to talk about secrets, Easter eggs, sequence breaking, etc. than they are to talk about themes, etc.). Primordia had the benefit of coming at a better time for indie games, apparently, so of course that complicates things, too. But still, I don't think you should assume that AoD will be overwhelmingly frontloaded.

 

[Vault Dweller]

^ Impressive sales.

 

[Lacrymas]

The whole AAA strategy depends on this though, overhyping cynically produced shit so it sells for ridiculous amounts before anyone can stop and say "Wait, this is shit." Even then the "professional" gaming press sycophants their way to a few bucks with GOTY proclamations.

 

[MRY]

^ Impressive sales.

Well, including bundles, the average pricepoint was about a 65% discount off the sticker price. Plus, once Steam takes its cut, and the publisher takes its cut, and the taxman takes its cut, and then it's divided among the team, it's not exactly making Notches out of us.

 

[IHaveHugeNick]

Worst case scenario you can always go to Fig with the next project.

 

[Forest Dweller]

How can anyone say with any seriousness that the game has been released? Early Access isn't a release in any meaningful sense of the word. It's a shit deal, with shit pay. As far as I'm concerned the game isn't released until October 14th. If people want to pay to be beta testers before then, that's between them and the developers. I don't think I'm the only gamer who feels this way.

If a game is good and playable upon release, I'd expect there to be a significant difference between purchases at release and purchases for early access. If people can show statistics that dispute this, I'll admit I'm wrong.

 

[Vault Dweller]

SteamSpy had some stats showing that Early Access release is the real deal, whether developers like it or not, as it generates the most awareness. While it's not true for everyone, it's possible that it's true for Steam which generates 60-95% of your sales, depending on the game, other platforms, and your own marketing effort.

 

[Lacrymas]

Did you say that you were going to release AoD on GOG? I usually hate DRM in all its incarnations, and even though Steam isn't that obtrusive I still have personal issues with it.

 

[Vault Dweller]

Yes.

 

[Forest Dweller]

SteamSpy had some stats showing that Early Access release is the real deal, whether developers like it or not, as it generates the most awareness. While it's not true for everyone, it's possible that it's true for Steam which generates 60-95% of your sales, depending on the game, other platforms, and your own marketing effort.

The real deal how? The majority of sales are with Early Access? Games with Early Access are likely to sell more on release?

 

[SniperHF]

I think he means real deal as in, release is release whether you do it before the game is finished or not. Unless it's a high profile game like say D:OS.

EDIT: This is the article:
https://medium.com/steam-spy/some-things-you-should-know-about-steam-5eaffcf33218

 

[tuluse]

I think he meant real deal as in "it generates the most awareness" like he wrote in his post.

 

[Longshanks]

That's the second-best angle, maybe. Stories of vaporware are interesting, but they also aren't entirely uncommon (and also don't have entirely positive connotations)

The best angle is THIS IS AN ANCIENT ROME RPG NOTHING LIKE THIS HAS EVER BEEN MADE OMG (well, okay, Nethergate)

In fact, I'd go further than that. It's the closest thing you'll ever get to Rome: The RPG (that is, the TV series Rome). That's a hell of an angle.

I don't think the setting is the game's best asset and I'd therefore not use it for marketing. The best asset of AOD is in it's character based roleplaying, particularly choice and consequence, and how the game is designed around this core element. For mine, it's strength of character roleplaying is still unmatched by any other recent game, it stands head and shoulders above anything else out there and that's why it's easily my most anticipated RPG.

Given that, I think the best angle to take with any extra PR push is exactly that which VD had taken previously: new games are shit and you modern gamers don't even know what C&C is or what RPGs should be, followed by a detailed explanation, with comparisons, as to why AOD is different. Plenty of readers will dismiss him as an arrogant arse troll, others who like to consider themselves as more "refined" gamers could definitely be convinced to at least take a look, even if it is to tear the game down (we have certainly seen a few of these pop up from time to time). To me this is the most honest and plain talking approach, and while Vince may be an arrogant arse, he's always been an honest one.

The most compelling story of this game is in its passionate commitment, both in the time and care taken to complete it, but also in adherence to well thought out design goals, that's what potential buyers should hear more about even if they think they don't want to.

 

[MRY]

Maybe because I am a boogeyman from felipepepe's nightmares, but I really don't see AOD as oldschool such that "modern gamers" don't know what its brand of C&C is like. Is there any old game with comparable C&C, either? I say this not having played it, but having read quite a bit, it seems like the complexity and variety of C&C is vastly beyond any of the older games I remember which either gave fairly narrow choices or kept the consequences fairly contained. Maybe Arcanum is in the same boat (I never finished it), but I don't really think so -- C&C is part of Arcanum, but I would say that Arcanum is more about reactivity to character builds, which is something different.

To me, AOD is a kind of path-not-taken freak -- while other members of the genus pursued an evolutionary strategy of focusing on the cinematic delivery of dialogue (to the detriment of choices' complexity), AOD pursued an evolutionary strategy of focusing on the choices themselves. It doesn't seem old school so much as what old school could have become under different conditions. I could imagine showing the ever-simpler dialogue options in Bioware games and then an AOD dialogue screen with, "What if rather than making choices simpler, we made them better?" (Though it's really no that the dialogue screens are per se more complicated, it's the way they interrelate, which is hard to demonstrate visually.)

 

[Longshanks]

Somewhat true, though the approach to C&C is definitely rooted in the original Fallout, so older gamers would see it as an extension or variance of that. Whereas the point of reference for modern gamers is C&C as some PR buzzword with weak in game implementation, especially on the consequence. The main difficulty with AOD is demonstrating that this game doesn't just talk about it, but that it actually delivers. So yes, the approach shouldn't be to hark back to older games and say AOD is "bringing back that old feeling", which is something VD has always averred, but more as a comparison to modern games and how they are lacking.

 

[Forest Dweller]

Maybe because I am a boogeyman from felipepepe's nightmares, but I really don't see AOD as oldschool such that "modern gamers" don't know what its brand of C&C is like. Is there any old game with comparable C&C, either? I say this not having played it, but having read quite a bit, it seems like the complexity and variety of C&C is vastly beyond any of the older games I remember which either gave fairly narrow choices or kept the consequences fairly contained. Maybe Arcanum is in the same boat (I never finished it), but I don't really think so -- C&C is part of Arcanum, but I would say that Arcanum is more about reactivity to character builds, which is something different.

To me, AOD is a kind of path-not-taken freak -- while other members of the genus pursued an evolutionary strategy of focusing on the cinematic delivery of dialogue (to the detriment of choices' complexity), AOD pursued an evolutionary strategy of focusing on the choices themselves. It doesn't seem old school so much as what old school could have become under different conditions. I could imagine showing the ever-simpler dialogue options in Bioware games and then an AOD dialogue screen with, "What if rather than making choices simpler, we made them better?" (Though it's really no that the dialogue screens are per se more complicated, it's the way they interrelate, which is hard to demonstrate visually.)

This is what I think should be stressed, if any part of the game is to be stressed, if order to make AOD "stand out." Because it is the most innovative part, really. It could give it the edge if enough word of mouth gets around.

 

[butchy]

I wish the endings were a little more climactic. Also, I found a lot of bugs I'm not reporting because you are a liar and a bad friend. For shame. The guy who posted above is named Dicksmoker. I like his style. My name was Ballface but that was taken from me by mean people.

 

[Infinitron]

I don't think the setting is the game's best asset and I'd therefore not use it for marketing. The best asset of AOD is in it's character based roleplaying, particularly choice and consequence, and how the game is designed around this core element. For mine, it's strength of character roleplaying is still unmatched by any other recent game, it stands head and shoulders above anything else out there and that's why it's easily my most anticipated RPG.

"This is what is I care about in games so I'm going to assume it's what everybody else cares about too". - a ton of Codexers

Choice and consequence is now a buzzword that has been used as far wide as Star Wars open world action games: http://www.rpgcodex.net/forums/index.php?threads/lucasarts-shut-down.81889/page-7#post-2883491

The setting is a powerful marketing hook. "Welcome to the Rome RPG, you can LARP a gladiator and backstab people." "FUCK YES I'm trying this out." Choice and consequence is a solid feature in the context of that, but something that will fly over many people's heads if used out of context.

 

[DwarvenFood]

Well, including bundles, the average pricepoint was about a 65% discount off the sticker price. Plus, once Steam takes its cut, and the publisher takes its cut, and the taxman takes its cut, and then it's divided among the team, it's not exactly making Notches out of us.

But for you personally, it must feel good since you said you are more driven by recognition than by money (what kind of Jew are you anyay ) So you could predict that within 6 months it will be around 100k sales not counting bundles, now that is a fine number indeed !

 

[Starwars]

Choices & Consequences as a term means absolutely nothing these days. One would have to somehow showcase that there really are different paths through the game, not just simple reactivity or "hey, it has MORAL CHOICES!".

Personally, I think the immense replayability, the skill system, and just the fact that you can play a fucking Merchant or Loremaster if you want, are the greatest assets of the game but how to highlight that in a PR sense (especially coming from an unknown indie studio) is beyond me.

I mean shit, just taking a look at the achievements shows how much there is to do in the game.

 

[Athelas]

Emphasize the fact that it's an RPG that isn't about saving the world, doesn't have elves or dwarves and where the only thing you're expected to care about is yourself.

Basically the pitch for Planescape: Torment. Though hopefully, unlike that game, it won't take another decade to find success.

 

[IHaveHugeNick]

So I've played a demo, and I don't know what it is, but I keep mistaking map button with a journal button, and its driving me insane. I must have made a mistake 257 times within first 3 hours.

1/10 would not buy.

 

[Aenra]

Choice and consequence is now a buzzword that has been used as far wide as Star Wars open world action games

The Jew is right. Plus, Longshanks from Australia (Australia!?! .. ) you seem to forget something even simpler. Newer audiences retards do not like to read. It's cinematic or gtfo. Even if C&C got their attention, they still wouldn't stick around. Too much reading, zero female ass shaking during the cutscenes. And then it's the dying. Their idea of dialogue C&C does not revolve around dying all the time

The truth is VD and team made it real hard for themselves. I can appreciate that, the notion of principles is important to me; they made the game as they wanted to, or near enough anyhow after years of Codex advising..; but i sure cannot see why anyone would expect AoD to fare better, especially at this price. Twenty eight bucks is not a fortune, but it may seem as unreasonably high compared to other "indie" games. Steam hurts you on that as well, so easy nowadays for the unaware to compare prices. All they need do is scroll down to 'other games like this' section.

 

[Lurker King]

While AoD C&C is unsurpassed, I think that focusing only on that feature is a poor presentation of the game. In general, when a studio focus too much on a buzzword is because the rest of the game is shit. In AoD, the setting is good, the writing is top notch, the combat system and the variety of builds is great, the graphics are good; the game is brutal, etc. Those are all strong points that cater to different type of players. I read too many comments in other threads about how AoD is a game for storyfaggs, which is a derogative statement, since the game has so much to offer. I think the best way to encapsulate what the game is about was already done by felipe pepe years ago, in the steam trailer. It is all there. What we can do is to maximize the exposition of its steam page, with its trailer, video guides, etc. If people watch that and don’t want to buy because ITS is a unknown studio, they have bad taste or whatever, there is nothing else to do. Of course, you can also buy more units to artificially increase the demand and help them succeed, but that approach has its limits too.